Jesus Was Obviously Gay

After many years of contemplating the contents of the Bible I have come to the eventual conclusion that Jesus was gay because;

He loved, and would do anything for, all men.

He surrounded himself with men, loving one in particular 'Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom

Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?'

He rode into Jerusalem on an ass.

He raised Lazarus.

He was 30 and unmarried at a time when the marital age would have been much younger.

He had his mother look after his partner upon his death, "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his
mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own
home."

According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near
Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the
passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house
of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked
body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. We cannot be sure from Biblical writings which. The homosexual option simply
seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple certainly points in that direction.

I noticed you failed to include cultural references and context. You didn't put a whole lot of effort into it, did you? A lot of vague
allegations and loose quotes with a final defensive flourish to make up for the lack of concentration in the main body of your post. What gives?

I guess Jesus could be "gay" in a joyful manner. When I read the bible or any other religious text, like the Quran, I always picture Jesus to be
more asexual. Where the character has no sexual relationship with anyone.

Speaking theologically; you would have to refer to the original Aramaic (or more specifically, the language of the time of writing the Bible verses
you quote) writings and which context "love" was written.

In English, we encompass the word love to have many different meanings and is pretty inclusive. Whereas in other languages, different forms of love
appear in different contexts.

Me thinks you created a poorly constructed satire in your thinking here.

I love cars is not the same as I love mankind. English is efficient in many manners but it is all about context. Interesting read nonetheless and
surely, as I am assuming, provoking (even if poorly researched).

I actually know the Bible pretty well.....and have been vexed by it for most of my life. The OT is demonic....and the NT is simply a biography with
little to no spiritual teaching whatsoever.

And no - there is no need for historical or cultural context because this is supposed to be the word of God....the all knowing, all powerful,
creator of us, the universe, and everything.....perfect in every way.

These fragments were found in a letter seemingly written in the late second century by Clement of Alexandria to an unknown Christian named
Theodore. Clement wrote in response to questions Theodore had sent him regarding a heretical gnostic sect called the Carpocratians. This sect is known
from Irenaeus and Eusebius, and was characterized by its belief in metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls. Carpocratians believed that a soul
could not be liberated until it had experienced all aspects of earthly life—including all aspects of sexual activity. Theodore had asked Clement
about some of the scripture they were using to justify their actions, particularly some passages from Mark’s gospel. Clement responded by explaining
that there were actually three versions of the book of Mark circulating in Alexandria: the canonical version, used by “those who were being
instructed,” the secret version, reserved for those “who were being perfected,” and the Carpocratian version. According to Clement, Mark wrote
his gospel in Rome, where he spoke directly with the apostle Peter. After Peter’s death, Mark moved to Alexandria, bringing with him his research
notes. There, he “composed a more spiritual gospel” by expanding his original gospel to include mystical truths for the spiritual benefit of
enlightened Christians (the orthodox congregation in Alexandria over which Clement presided also tended toward gnosticism). This secret gospel was
then stolen by a rogue elder in the church and given to Carpocrates, who added to it his own “blasphemous and carnal doctrine.” Theodore needed to
know how to distinguish genuine Mark from the corrupted version, which they used to legitimize their sexual license. Apparently, Carpocrates had
strengthened the innuendo in Fragment 1 by adding “naked man with naked man,” a phrase Clement assured Theodore was not in the original text
(1.67-68).

Sorry for the wall of text, but they were rather detailed about the examination, as you can see, and I didn't want to leave too much out. It's mainly
concerned with speculation that Carpocrates had modified the original text for philosophical reasons. Speculation, certainly, but so is Jesus'
homosexuality:

Tatchell’s quote illustrates that the argument for Jesus’ homosexuality finds its strongest support, not in Scripture, but in its silence.
Homosexual advocates argue that the absence of any explicit commentary on Jesus’ sexuality ought to remove the ancient assumption that He was
heterosexual.

Make of it what you will, but I thought I'd play the Devil's Advocate and present the case for the defense. Proof positive that I am fully capable and
willing to play both sides of the field for objectivity's sake.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.